I have played hockey competitively, and we wore lace-ups. Old, pre-Edge lace-ups at that. The "kicked up" collar was never an issue.

So I can't see how the Edge lace-ups, which as you said were mostly ornamental, would be any worse.

This is all subjective. And I realise that you're coming from a place where you have a company line to hold.

Still? I find the new Adidas collars to be ugly and a huge step down from the Reebok collars. Which is made even more frustrating because, again, it's the same manufacturer.

I also don't find the "player comfort" line especially convincing as someone who has played hockey competitively. I'm sure many of the advancements in material and cut since I played have been for the better. I remember myself lamenting the cut of the old CCM/Koho sweaters on occasion.

I can't say I ever thought about the collars though. The only time I ever thought, or think, about collars is within the realm of aesthetics. And on that point? The new collars just *look* bad. I don't feel as if that opinion is "unacceptable."

If you're truly interested in what people think? Here's my take.

The shot of the Jets and Oilers above is a great contrast. The Oilers' collars look fine. The Jets' collars, with the huge splash of silver, look terrible.

The halfway coloured collars, like the Penguins have, looks awful. It creates a polo-shirt effect, which isn't flattering.

The lace-ups with the new collars are awful. The last Reebok lace-ups were ornamental, but they at least looked great. These don't even have that going for them.

I realize you're just one guy. And I realize that in addition to that the manufacturer still has to bow to team preference (ie if Toronto wants bad lace-ups they're going to have bad lace-ups regardless of what you or anyone else says).

Still? That's my honest assessment as both someone who's played hockey and as a fan.

I don't even expect you take my "feedback" to heart in any meaningful way. It would just be nice to have a conversation about this stuff without you or another pro designer going "well you just don't get it."

Others and myself know a bit more than you may think. And constantly having our opinions waved off by someone on the "inside" repeating corporate platitudes doesn't help the discussion.

You know me well enough to know I’m not a “company line” person. I’m (respectfully) honest when I evaluate aesthetics, no matter who did it and where it comes from, but I also recognize that aesthetics (at all sportswear companies) are driven by a desire to make a better product for the athletes, and I take that into account when I evaluate aesthetics and think of ways to make them better.

I didn’t say your opinion of the new collars was unacceptable (I like many of the old collars as well). I said that prioritizing the aesthetics over the functional benefits is unacceptable from a process standpoint, and I’m not implying there’s something you don’t “get” with that statement. The simple reality is that when you’re designing physical product in 2017, function comes first, and I think that’s the position a designer is expected to take 100% of the time.

Now, the design of the collar, functionally, is established based on athlete feedback. Again, I understand you don’t see the benefit from a player’s perspective, but this data isn’t made up. Designs are always rigorously tested and that feedback plays a big role in the development, so all I can tell you is that players like the collar better, based on the sample size of World Cup players, and that’s the main reason it was carried into the NHL.

The aesthetic choices within the framework of that collar design are really what make it or break it for me. Like you, I think some variations work and others are firmly in “not how I would have done it” territory. I like the clean, detailed look of the Oilers’ collar and I even like the simple crew-inspired look Detroit went with.

So with that said, I’m not sure why you feel like I’m shutting down your opinion. You know I don’t do that and that’s not my goal here (aesthetically, I agree with you). I’m here to give people a little more information and context that can help to think about, understand, and evaluate things more thoroughly.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So with that said, I’m not sure why you feel like I’m shutting down your opinion

My apologies. I went to far with that.

It's just a bit of a of pet peeve of mine when people "in this business" tend to go "well you don't get how this process works." I admit I'm over-sensitive to that

3 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

Now, the design of the collar, functionally, is established based on athlete feedback. Again, I understand you don’t see the benefit from a player’s perspective, but this data isn’t made up.

I know it's made up, but I also tend to think that manufacturers maybe go overboard a bit? I know this isn't a new, or even nuanced, argument but Wayne Gretzky is the greatest player who ever lived. And he put up those stats wearing sweaters and socks that were bulkier and made of heavier, less water resistant, materials than what players today wear. Or the Swedish Olympic team winning gold in 2006 while wearing old sweaters. Against a field of teams in Nike Swift gear (how have they not adapted this story for the sequel to Miracle? )

Obviously great talent will shine through regardless of gear, and a lot of the advances HAVE been for the better. I have no doubt that the Reebok Edge sweaters were an improvement over the CCM/Koho sweaters once the overly-tight cuts and the too-sweat-resistant-for-their-own-good materials were tweaked.

I guess I'm asking where is the line is between actual evolution and needless tinkering? Did the Reebok Edge collars REALLY have to be changed? Are the alleged advantages of the new Adidas collars significant enough to make up for the sacrifice in aesthetics?

I suppose my biggest issue with the Adidas collars is how they're coloured (aside from the lace-ups, which just look irredeemably bad in my opinion). Teams that keep it simple and clean manage to pull it off once you see them over pads and in action. It's when teams try to get cute by making the portion with the NHL shield it's own colour or only half-colour the collars that things get needlessly messy.

I understand that this is in many ways new "technology" and a new cut and that a lot of these aesthetic unpleasantries may sort themselves out as teams get used to how the templates "work" (much like how Edge looks evolved once that initial wave of sweaters was unveiled).

I'm with @CreamSoda on the aesthetics of it all. Some collars are a lateral move, but I just don't see anyone whose look was improved by the new ones. If they all went Edmonton or Detroit's route with the colour layouts it would be fine, but as they are now? There's a lot of unfortunate designs out there.

Share on other sites

It's just a bit of a of pet peeve of mine when people "in this business" tend to go "well you don't get how this process works." I admit I'm over-sensitive to that

I know it's made up, but I also tend to think that manufacturers maybe go overboard a bit? I know this isn't a new, or even nuanced, argument but Wayne Gretzky is the greatest player who ever lived. And he put up those stats wearing sweaters and socks that were bulkier and made of heavier, less water resistant, materials than what players today wear. Or the Swedish Olympic team winning gold in 2006 while wearing old sweaters. Against a field of teams in Nike Swift gear (how have they not adapted this story for the sequel to Miracle? )

Obviously great talent will shine through regardless of gear, and a lot of the advances HAVE been for the better. I have no doubt that the Reebok Edge sweaters were an improvement over the CCM/Koho sweaters once the overly-tight cuts and the too-sweat-resistant-for-their-own-good materials were tweaked.

I guess I'm asking where is the line is between actual evolution and needless tinkering? Did the Reebok Edge collars REALLY have to be changed? Are the alleged advantages of the new Adidas collars significant enough to make up for the sacrifice in aesthetics?

I suppose my biggest issue with the Adidas collars is how they're coloured (aside from the lace-ups, which just look irredeemably bad in my opinion). Teams that keep it simple and clean manage to pull it off once you see them over pads and in action. It's when teams try to get cute by making the portion with the NHL shield it's own colour or only half-colour the collars that things get needlessly messy.

I understand that this is in many ways new "technology" and a new cut and that a lot of these aesthetic unpleasantries may sort themselves out as teams get used to how the templates "work" (much like how Edge looks evolved once that initial wave of sweaters was unveiled).

I'm with @CreamSoda on the aesthetics of it all. Some collars are a lateral move, but I just don't see anyone whose look was improved by the new ones. If they all went Edmonton or Detroit's route with the colour layouts it would be fine, but as they are now? There's a lot of unfortunate designs out there.

Agreed on all fronts.

By no means should designers ever deliberately stop trying to make the uniform better, but figuring out how to make those innovations look great is an important step that gets sacrificed too often. That sound fair? :-)

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So why did Adidas decide to curve all the hem stripes? What does everyone think of them?

I'm sorta indifferent on them. There's no white space just flapping around in the bottom but sometimes the back of the jersey doesn't look the most appealing. It's like someone pulled the back of the jersey too hard and stretched it.

I remember when the EDGE jerseys first came out the Rangers did something where it gave the illusion that the hems where straight. I wonder why they stopped?

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So why did Adidas decide to curve all the hem stripes? What does everyone think of them?

I'm sorta indifferent on them. There's no white space just flapping around in the bottom but sometimes the back of the jersey doesn't look the most appealing. It's like someone pulled the back of the jersey too hard and stretched it.

I remember when the EDGE jerseys first came out the Rangers did something where it gave the illusion that the hems where straight. I wonder why they stopped?

Having the stripes go along with the hem is just as dumb as having the ultra wide whale tale. The more stripes, the worse it looks. There was nothing wrong with having a straight hem and I was hoping Adidas, despite being Reebok's overlords, would fix it. On some teams like the New York Islanders and Detroit Red Wings, it actually is somewhat of an improvement because the sides no longer look like there was barely anything there and the front/back looked extra wide because of it. Now, at least it looks like a proper full stripe.

So why did Adidas decide to curve all the hem stripes? What does everyone think of them?

I'm sorta indifferent on them. There's no white space just flapping around in the bottom but sometimes the back of the jersey doesn't look the most appealing. It's like someone pulled the back of the jersey too hard and stretched it.

I remember when the EDGE jerseys first came out the Rangers did something where it gave the illusion that the hems where straight. I wonder why they stopped?

The scooped hemlines were the remnants of Reebok's plan for tucked-in uniforms. This is why a good number of teams forsook hem stripes for side panels and piping that were supposed to line up with their respective pant designs (see Buffalo, Calgary). As for why Adidas retained this feature, who knows. The way every stripe is contoured to this wholly unnecessary feature makes the treatment look even worse, especially in the above photo. Since the RBK debacle of 2007, I have longed for a return of straight hems with straight stripes. There was no good reason for the scoop in 2007 and it makes even less sense now.